Cargando…
Utilisation of the 2019 IWGDF diabetic foot infection guidelines to benchmark practice and improve the delivery of care in persons with diabetic foot infections
AIMS: To utilise the 2019 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) - diabetic foot infection (DFI) guidelines as an audit tool for clinical practice in patients with diabetes attending a High-Risk Foot Service. METHODS: Data from 93 consecutive patients were collected over a 19-month...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7842064/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33509233 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13047-021-00448-w |
_version_ | 1783643938022752256 |
---|---|
author | Malone, Matthew Erasmus, Adriaan Schwarzer, Saskia Lau, Namson S. Ahmad, Mehtab Dickson, Hugh G. |
author_facet | Malone, Matthew Erasmus, Adriaan Schwarzer, Saskia Lau, Namson S. Ahmad, Mehtab Dickson, Hugh G. |
author_sort | Malone, Matthew |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIMS: To utilise the 2019 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) - diabetic foot infection (DFI) guidelines as an audit tool for clinical practice in patients with diabetes attending a High-Risk Foot Service. METHODS: Data from 93 consecutive patients were collected over a 19-month period in patients attending a High-Risk Foot Service. The diagnosis and management of each patient in the sample were compared against the 2019 IWGDF DFI guidelines, grouped into four categories: Diagnosis, Microbiology, Treatment of soft tissue infection, and Surgical treatment and osteomyelitis. Deficits in performance were recorded using the recommendations as a benchmark standard. RESULTS: There were 109 DFI events. Nineteen (63%) of the recommendations were met, 7 (24%) were partially met, and four (13%) recommendations were not met. Fourteen of the sample had no documented requests for full blood counts. Tissue was obtained for culture in 32 (29%) of the sample. No percutaneous bone biopsies were performed. Only 13 (28%) patients had intraoperative bone specimens sent for culture and sensitivities, with no bone specimens sent for histopathology. Modification of antibiotic therapy following available culture results was low, occurring in 12 out of 63 possible occasions (19%). The duration of antibiotic regimens in PEDIS 2 infections and osteomyelitis was greater than that recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Utilising the IWGDF DFI guidelines to benchmark clinical practice is a useful tool to identify gaps in clinical performance or service delivery and may help to improve patient care. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13047-021-00448-w. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7842064 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78420642021-01-28 Utilisation of the 2019 IWGDF diabetic foot infection guidelines to benchmark practice and improve the delivery of care in persons with diabetic foot infections Malone, Matthew Erasmus, Adriaan Schwarzer, Saskia Lau, Namson S. Ahmad, Mehtab Dickson, Hugh G. J Foot Ankle Res Research AIMS: To utilise the 2019 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) - diabetic foot infection (DFI) guidelines as an audit tool for clinical practice in patients with diabetes attending a High-Risk Foot Service. METHODS: Data from 93 consecutive patients were collected over a 19-month period in patients attending a High-Risk Foot Service. The diagnosis and management of each patient in the sample were compared against the 2019 IWGDF DFI guidelines, grouped into four categories: Diagnosis, Microbiology, Treatment of soft tissue infection, and Surgical treatment and osteomyelitis. Deficits in performance were recorded using the recommendations as a benchmark standard. RESULTS: There were 109 DFI events. Nineteen (63%) of the recommendations were met, 7 (24%) were partially met, and four (13%) recommendations were not met. Fourteen of the sample had no documented requests for full blood counts. Tissue was obtained for culture in 32 (29%) of the sample. No percutaneous bone biopsies were performed. Only 13 (28%) patients had intraoperative bone specimens sent for culture and sensitivities, with no bone specimens sent for histopathology. Modification of antibiotic therapy following available culture results was low, occurring in 12 out of 63 possible occasions (19%). The duration of antibiotic regimens in PEDIS 2 infections and osteomyelitis was greater than that recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Utilising the IWGDF DFI guidelines to benchmark clinical practice is a useful tool to identify gaps in clinical performance or service delivery and may help to improve patient care. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13047-021-00448-w. BioMed Central 2021-01-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7842064/ /pubmed/33509233 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13047-021-00448-w Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Malone, Matthew Erasmus, Adriaan Schwarzer, Saskia Lau, Namson S. Ahmad, Mehtab Dickson, Hugh G. Utilisation of the 2019 IWGDF diabetic foot infection guidelines to benchmark practice and improve the delivery of care in persons with diabetic foot infections |
title | Utilisation of the 2019 IWGDF diabetic foot infection guidelines to benchmark practice and improve the delivery of care in persons with diabetic foot infections |
title_full | Utilisation of the 2019 IWGDF diabetic foot infection guidelines to benchmark practice and improve the delivery of care in persons with diabetic foot infections |
title_fullStr | Utilisation of the 2019 IWGDF diabetic foot infection guidelines to benchmark practice and improve the delivery of care in persons with diabetic foot infections |
title_full_unstemmed | Utilisation of the 2019 IWGDF diabetic foot infection guidelines to benchmark practice and improve the delivery of care in persons with diabetic foot infections |
title_short | Utilisation of the 2019 IWGDF diabetic foot infection guidelines to benchmark practice and improve the delivery of care in persons with diabetic foot infections |
title_sort | utilisation of the 2019 iwgdf diabetic foot infection guidelines to benchmark practice and improve the delivery of care in persons with diabetic foot infections |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7842064/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33509233 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13047-021-00448-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT malonematthew utilisationofthe2019iwgdfdiabeticfootinfectionguidelinestobenchmarkpracticeandimprovethedeliveryofcareinpersonswithdiabeticfootinfections AT erasmusadriaan utilisationofthe2019iwgdfdiabeticfootinfectionguidelinestobenchmarkpracticeandimprovethedeliveryofcareinpersonswithdiabeticfootinfections AT schwarzersaskia utilisationofthe2019iwgdfdiabeticfootinfectionguidelinestobenchmarkpracticeandimprovethedeliveryofcareinpersonswithdiabeticfootinfections AT launamsons utilisationofthe2019iwgdfdiabeticfootinfectionguidelinestobenchmarkpracticeandimprovethedeliveryofcareinpersonswithdiabeticfootinfections AT ahmadmehtab utilisationofthe2019iwgdfdiabeticfootinfectionguidelinestobenchmarkpracticeandimprovethedeliveryofcareinpersonswithdiabeticfootinfections AT dicksonhughg utilisationofthe2019iwgdfdiabeticfootinfectionguidelinestobenchmarkpracticeandimprovethedeliveryofcareinpersonswithdiabeticfootinfections |